THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 106/2021

1.       Suvarna Karnataka Gruha Nirmana

          Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha,

          Having its registered office at No.3,

          94/1, 2^nd Floor, 80 Feet Road,

          Near Big Bazaar, Katthariguppe,

          Banashankari 3^rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085

          Repted By its Secretary.

2.       The President,

          Suvarna Karnataka Gruha Nirmana

          Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha,

          Having its registered office at No.3,

          94/1, 2^nd Floor, 80 Feet Road,

          Near Big Bazaar, Katthariguppe,

          Banashankari 3^rd Stage, Bengaluru-560 085

….Appellant/s.

(By Shri/Smt. G.Chandrashekaraiah, Adv.,)

                                          -Versus-

Smt. Kumudini Bharath D/o A.J.Sadashiva,

Aged about 50 years, R/at Bhairavi, No.1385

9^th Main Road, Judicial Layout, Bengaluru-560 065.

……….. Respondent/s

(In person)

:ORDERS:

BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR  -  JUDICIAL MEMBER

         The Opposite Party in complaint No.189/2020 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Bangalore Urban District Commission which directed the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% PA and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the complaint and submits that the complainant was one of the member of their Society and she applied for allotment of site by paying the necessary registration fee.  Subsequently, she paid Rs.8,00,000/- on different dates towards allotment of the site.

2.      The Opposite Party further submitted that the 1^st Opposite Party is the Registered Society who has intended to allot the sites and accordingly they acquired lands to form layouts in order to allot the sites to its members.  But due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not allot the sites to the members of the Society along with complainant as the Developer though had agreed to develop the land into sites with the collusion of their previous President has violated the terms and conditions and subsequently the Managing Partner of the said Firm Mr. K.Rajashekar met with an accident and died on 16.12.2014, due to which the land was not developed and allot to its members of the Society along with the complainant.  Anyhow, they are returning the amounts to all its members and so far they have refunded an amount of Rs.1,55,88,000/- to the several members between 2010 to 2018 and this Opposite Party yet to refund an amount of Rs.3,18,75,350/- which were paid by the members.  But knowing all these facts, the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service, for which the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed them to pay Rs.8,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a.  The interest awarded was not in accordance with law, because there was no agreement with respect to the payment of interest in case of default in allotting the sites.  Hence, the learned Advocate for appllellant prays if at all any interest would be awarded that can be restricted to 5% and also prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission as they are settling the matter by refunding the amounts to their members.                                                                      

3.       On going through the memorandum f appeal, certified copy of the order and written arguments filed by the respondent, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was one of the member who booked a site by paying an advance amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.  But subsequently, the Opposite Party admittedly not allotted the sites and refunding the amounts to their members.  The Opposite Party submits in the memorandum of appeal that they have already refunded to their members an amount of Rs.1,55,88,000/-, but why not to complainant. The complainant in order get her hard earned money, constrained to file a complaint before the District Commission.

4. The District Commission has rightly awarded refund of the amount along with 12% interest on the amount paid by the complainant after considering the facts and evidences produced by both the parties.  Hence, we found there is no grounds to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission.  As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-      

:ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

The impugned order dated:05/12/2020 passed by Bangalore Urban District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.189/2020 is hereby confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Respondent/complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

Member.                                                               Judicial Member.

Tss